Fluoride

[The Bastard]

9 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

HaHa

 

Good spot. Maybe Flouride is a new element

Almost as good as Manx Radio's story today - "Residents with visual impairments given opportunity to see interior of Manx buses"

[Roxanne]

17 minutes ago, The Bastard said:

Almost as good as Manx Radio's story today - "Residents with visual impairments given opportunity to see interior of Manx buses"

Behold. It's a miracle!

[HeliX]

31 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

The effectiveness is not questionable. So long as the child does not drink coke exclusively. I don't agree with it though

https://post.parliament.uk/water-fluoridation-and-dental-health/

From your link...

"A number of concerns have nevertheless been expressed regarding the overall quality of the available evidence, with the majority of studies being conducted before 1975 and therefore prior to the widespread introduction of fluoridated toothpastes. It is therefore unclear whether the size of the reported benefits of fluoridation would be of a similar magnitude today.

Additionally, research showed that no studies that are considered to be of the highest quality are available. For example, studies that use a control group or which compare data against a baseline. Against this backdrop, numerous reviews have called for more high quality contemporary research."

 

Topical fluoride is the best delivery method. Putting it in water doesn't do that particularly effectively, unless you happen to swill every mouthful round your mouth before swallowing!

[CallMeCurious]

So what percentage of children are presenting with rotten teeth? 

Lets assume by the age of 16 they are old enough to look after their teeth as they are also able to learn to drive and vote.

Out of a population of 82,368 (2021 census) 14,299 (17%) are 16 or under.

The teeth you are born with fall out to be replaced by adult teeth beginning around 6 up to about 13 years old.

So up to 6, those teeth will naturally be lost anyway. So that removes the need for 5,083 (6%) to be protected

Or basically, this would be done to protect the teeth of at most 9,216 (11%) of the population.

The truth being that most responsible parents would not neglect teaching and encouraging brushing and so don't need the treatment either.

Even allowing that to be a reasonably pessemistic 50% of all chidlren then the plan is to dose a population of 82,368 to protect the teeth of 4,608 (5.5%) children because of their parents actions or inaction?

Seems ironic you can go to such great lengths to teach kids about sex and multiple identities but not how to brush their teeth?   

Maybe we should mandate all 37 schools have a fluoride dosing pump attached their water supply instead? Problem solved.

 

       

[Roxanne]

What is it with trying to sort things after the event rather than prevention.

We have a shortage of dentists, we cancelled the Life Education bus, we have sweet and soft drink vending machines in schools, we contracted out our meals service to the cheapest supplier rather than the healthiest but now we're going to put fluoride in the water for everyone because our childrens teeth are rotting?

 

ETA - not to mention the additional load of fluoridated water on thyroid health in the general population - just as one expample of the downsides.

Get the children's teeth coated if it's that much of a problem - if they can find a dentist to do it.

 

Edited April 12, 2023 by Roxanne

[Happier diner]

1 hour ago, HeliX said:

From your link...

"A number of concerns have nevertheless been expressed regarding the overall quality of the available evidence, with the majority of studies being conducted before 1975 and therefore prior to the widespread introduction of fluoridated toothpastes. It is therefore unclear whether the size of the reported benefits of fluoridation would be of a similar magnitude today.

Additionally, research showed that no studies that are considered to be of the highest quality are available. For example, studies that use a control group or which compare data against a baseline. Against this backdrop, numerous reviews have called for more high quality contemporary research."

 

Topical fluoride is the best delivery method. Putting it in water doesn't do that particularly effectively, unless you happen to swill every mouthful round your mouth before swallowing!

Topical depends on parental responsibility. Most kids have rotten teeth because their parents are not responsible. Therefore Topical fluoride is theoretically more effective. However, in practice, it is ineffective. I agree, it is the better way to go but some intervention would be needed.

[Happier diner]

1 hour ago, CallMeCurious said:

The truth being that most responsible parents would not neglect teaching and encouraging brushing and so don't need the treatment either.

True. But there are plenty of parents who are not

1 hour ago, CallMeCurious said:

Maybe we should mandate all 37 schools have a fluoride dosing pump attached their water supply instead? Problem solved.

Its possible, and would be very effective but quite complex and would be very costly to maintain

 

Maybe better to persuade Coca-Cola to put it in their drinks 

[paswt]

I wouldn't trust the water authorities adding anything to the water , they would 'screw up a two car funeral'. 

As Roxy posted there are downsides to the addition of fluoride  . Just saying 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[snowman]

9 minutes ago, paswt said:

I wouldn't trust the water authorities adding anything to the water , they would 'screw up a two car funeral'. 

As Roxy posted there are downsides to the addition of fluoride  . Just saying 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They add stuff already.....

[Happier diner]

2 minutes ago, snowman said:

They add stuff already.....

Relatively successfully I would say

[CallMeCurious]

24 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

True. But there are plenty of parents who are not

Its possible, and would be very effective but quite complex and would be very costly to maintain

 

Maybe better to persuade Coca-Cola to put it in their drinks 

My point being why poison 82.3k people to protect the teeth of 4.6k (6%) of the population? Why not target 9.2k (11%) in schools to acheive the same results?

When you consider the cost of dosing every drop of water processed for the islands consumption 24/7 (i.e. boilers, car washes, animal troughs, toilets, dishwashers, washing machines, breweries, fire hydrants, swimming pools, ketles, coffee machines...)

vs

37 locations with a single point of input that are closed for 16 hours of a day and 25% of the year. Where you could modify the plumbing to split out WC's, washing machines and dishwasher out first quite easily?

Then you'd have the proof, or otherwise, that it works.

I cna hear the screams of those same negligent parents "No don't dose my children" ... the same ones who give the little darlings mobile phones and whine when they put up mobile masts next to the schools.

We used to do free milk at school (if that is still a thing) why not a free toothbrush and toothpaste every fortnight?

Toothbrush £1, toothpaste £1 = £2 per pupil (6-16) = £2 x 9,200 x 26 = £478,400.00. add £12,600 to administer it and call it £500,000 a year.

Or about £13,700 per school which is not even half a teachers salary. Fund it from public health and be done with it.

Maybe trial it for a year or two before we blow millions on building a fluorodation plant only to find it has little to no impact? 

 

 

[Cambon]

1 hour ago, Happier diner said:

Topical depends on parental responsibility. Most kids have rotten teeth because their parents are not responsible. Therefore Topical fluoride is theoretically more effective. However, in practice, it is ineffective. I agree, it is the better way to go but some intervention would be needed.

Ok. Fine parents who let their kids teeth rot! 

[Happier diner]

41 minutes ago, CallMeCurious said:

My point being why poison 82.3k people to protect the teeth of 4.6k (6%) of the population? Why not target 9.2k (11%) in schools to acheive the same results?

It would be 37 Dosing Plants. Say £50k each. That would be £1,850,000 + the running costs of all those plants. Not feasible

When you consider the cost of dosing every drop of water processed for the islands consumption 24/7 (i.e. boilers, car washes, animal troughs, toilets, dishwashers, washing machines, breweries, fire hydrants, swimming pools, ketles, coffee machines...) True

vs

37 locations with a single point of input that are closed for 16 hours of a day and 25% of the year. Where you could modify the plumbing to split out WC's, washing machines and dishwasher out first quite easily? No it would be almost impossible

Then you'd have the proof, or otherwise, that it works. We already know it works

I cna hear the screams of those same negligent parents "No don't dose my children" ... the same ones who give the little darlings mobile phones and whine when they put up mobile masts next to the schools.😁 True

We used to do free milk at school (if that is still a thing) why not a free toothbrush and toothpaste every fortnight? Possible yes

Toothbrush £1, toothpaste £1 = £2 per pupil (6-16) = £2 x 9,200 x 26 = £478,400.00. add £12,600 to administer it and call it £500,000 a year.

Or about £13,700 per school which is not even half a teachers salary. Fund it from public health and be done with it.

Maybe trial it for a year or two before we blow millions on building a fluorodation plant only to find it has little to no impact? IT WOULD HAVE AN IMPACT

 

 

Just to be clear. I am not advocating mass fluoridation of the water supply. I am merely stating some facts.

[woolley]

2 hours ago, snowman said:

They add stuff already.....

And bugger it up quite frequently.

[woolley]

It's an old idea that keeps doing the rounds to keep the advocates for it in work. A definite no to mass medication with unknowable side effects. Do these kids even drink tap water?